4 ms·

It's a fact that the various vaccines were released without any information about their effectiveness on transmission. It's not impossible to prove, it's just n

by ppf 6y ago

It's a fact that the various vaccines were released without any information about their effectiveness on transmission. It's not impossible to prove, it's just not been done (nor, if the tests were done, do we know what the results would be). >"vaccinate the people near the vulnerable so they won't spread it to the vulnerable" Why does that matter, if the vulnerable are already vaccinated? That was the whole point of vaccinating them in the first place.

Dylan16807 6y ago
> It's a fact that the various vaccines were released without any information about their effectiveness on transmission. It's not impossible to prove, it's just not been done (nor, if the tests were done, do we know what the results would be). So do you withdraw the claim that "what we got" are vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity? > Why does that matter, if the vulnerable are already vaccinated? That was the whole point of vaccinating them in the first place. Not everyone can be vaccinated and supplies have been limited. And less people getting sick is good even if it's milder.
- ppf 6y ago
  If you really want to nitpick, "what we got" are vaccines that are not known to provide sterilising immunity, and the 3rd party testing that has been done shows limited effect on reducing transmission. That being the case, it would be surprising if they did have sterilising immunity.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    You still haven't said a single number, url, or searchable phrase. Asking for a source is not nitpicking. For what it's worth if I search for "covid vaccine transmission effectiveness" my top results are "COVID-19 vaccines are probably less effective at preventing transmission than symptoms", which is vague on the term "less" but still suggests a large improvement over not being vaccinated, "New research suggests vaccines reduce risk of COVID-19 spread through nose and mouth", and "Pfizer vaccine shots actually stop asymptomatic transmission, too"
    - ppf 6y ago
      It's not nitpicking to ask for a source for the statement "it's not known if the various vaccines give sterilising immunity", it's asking for proof of a negative. The only possible refutation of such a statement is a counterexample (that is, evidence of it providing sterilising immunity). If we were to set this discussion up properly, the burden of proof would be on the person making the statement "this vaccine provides sterilising immunity". I'm fully aware of the results you found, as I already indicated with statements like "3rd party testing that has been done shows limited effect on reducing transmission". As I already said, it would be very surprising if a vaccine had limited effectiveness at reducing transmission (as your search results indicate), and also provided sterilising immunity. In fact, it seems to me that the known fact that transmission does still occur, preculdes the idea that the vaccines have sterilising immunity. I don't get what your point is. I suggest you work out what that is, before delving into more complicated subjects. As I have essentially repeated what I said before, it seems we are now going in circles.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > It's not nitpicking to ask for a source for the statement "it's not known if the various vaccines give sterilising immunity", it's asking for proof of a negative. You're rewriting history. You definitely did not say "it's not known" originally, you made a very clear statement that they didn't confer it. > I don't get what your point is. That if "limited" is 80% then you are grossly misrepresenting the situation to talk like transmission isn't affected.
        ppf 6y ago
        I already clarified my statement, quite a few replies ago. I've also already suggested that the known low effectiveness of reducing transmission would indicate that it does not have sterilising immunity. But wait! > 80% Now, you've made a pretty positive statement there. My turn to ask you for a link, or other proof.
        Dylan16807 6y ago

by ppf 6y ago

Dylan16807 6y ago

> It's a fact that the various vaccines were released without any information about their effectiveness on transmission. It's not impossible to prove, it's just not been done (nor, if the tests were done, do we know what the results would be). So do you withdraw the claim that "what we got" are vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity? > Why does that matter, if the vulnerable are already vaccinated? That was the whole point of vaccinating them in the first place. Not everyone can be vaccinated and supplies have been limited. And less people getting sick is good even if it's milder.

ppf 6y ago
If you really want to nitpick, "what we got" are vaccines that are not known to provide sterilising immunity, and the 3rd party testing that has been done shows limited effect on reducing transmission. That being the case, it would be surprising if they did have sterilising immunity.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  You still haven't said a single number, url, or searchable phrase. Asking for a source is not nitpicking. For what it's worth if I search for "covid vaccine transmission effectiveness" my top results are "COVID-19 vaccines are probably less effective at preventing transmission than symptoms", which is vague on the term "less" but still suggests a large improvement over not being vaccinated, "New research suggests vaccines reduce risk of COVID-19 spread through nose and mouth", and "Pfizer vaccine shots actually stop asymptomatic transmission, too"
  - ppf 6y ago
    It's not nitpicking to ask for a source for the statement "it's not known if the various vaccines give sterilising immunity", it's asking for proof of a negative. The only possible refutation of such a statement is a counterexample (that is, evidence of it providing sterilising immunity). If we were to set this discussion up properly, the burden of proof would be on the person making the statement "this vaccine provides sterilising immunity". I'm fully aware of the results you found, as I already indicated with statements like "3rd party testing that has been done shows limited effect on reducing transmission". As I already said, it would be very surprising if a vaccine had limited effectiveness at reducing transmission (as your search results indicate), and also provided sterilising immunity. In fact, it seems to me that the known fact that transmission does still occur, preculdes the idea that the vaccines have sterilising immunity. I don't get what your point is. I suggest you work out what that is, before delving into more complicated subjects. As I have essentially repeated what I said before, it seems we are now going in circles.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > It's not nitpicking to ask for a source for the statement "it's not known if the various vaccines give sterilising immunity", it's asking for proof of a negative. You're rewriting history. You definitely did not say "it's not known" originally, you made a very clear statement that they didn't confer it. > I don't get what your point is. That if "limited" is 80% then you are grossly misrepresenting the situation to talk like transmission isn't affected.
      - ppf 6y ago
        I already clarified my statement, quite a few replies ago. I've also already suggested that the known low effectiveness of reducing transmission would indicate that it does not have sterilising immunity. But wait! > 80% Now, you've made a pretty positive statement there. My turn to ask you for a link, or other proof.
        Dylan16807 6y ago